| 3:19 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems to work OK. Accesses only yahoo.com though. No ways to optimize unless you have a Yahoo account (currently only US-accounts working). Spyware blocker is still missing in this beta.
| 3:40 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|* Search the Web from anywhere online |
* Easily discover and add RSS feeds to My Yahoo!
* Customize and access your Toolbar from any PC
* Anti-Spy for Firefox coming soon
Ummm... what does it really offer that isn't already in FF? Am I missing something?
| 5:25 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Spyware takes aim at Mozilla browsers [news.com.com]
The spyware blocker might be a nice benefit with the above in mind.
However it's my guess Yahoo wants access to the same sort of information Google collects via its toolbar.
| 5:41 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What, no webrank feature? bah ;)
| 7:27 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|However it's my guess Yahoo wants access to the same sort of information Google collects via its toolbar. |
You mean the Google Firefox toolbar?
| 8:04 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's gotta be killing Y that G hired the FF lead developer recently.
...and a few other key players from high profile tech co's.
| 8:28 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Am I the only one that really dislikes toolbars on the computer?
| 11:05 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Nop sadelb I hate the things
| 6:25 pm on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Toolbars rule. Makes it easy to get different results from different search engines (among other cool little functions).
| 6:18 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Am I the only one that really dislikes toolbars on the computer? |
No. I stopped using them too as being way to privacy-invasive.
G$, for example, uses the G$-TB to watch every site you go to and then uses that information to penalize the sites you frequent if G$ thinks you "care" about the sites in any way. They may claim in G$'s typical Big Brother orwellian lies, but the end-results prove they're just lying. They only want the TB to gather yet another unnecessary data-set with which to further oppress webmasters in order to control what surfers get to see.
Unless the TBs bring an end to the privacy-invasion and any SE using one declares such removal of privacy-invasion openly and in open source, the TBs cannot be trusted at all.
So, no, you are not alone at all.
| 10:24 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MM - type "google is too creepy" into google. You'll find plenty other people wearing the same make and model of tinfoil hat as you wear.
| 10:36 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And I thought G$ cult worshippers were not supposed to go off-topic! :)
Let's stick to the topic.
| 1:15 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Mmmmm-hmmm... that's me, the cult worshipper.
You need to tweak the gamma ray shielding on your tinfoil hat, MM.
Seriously, what's the big advantage for the Y toolbar over what's already built in to FF? The list of "features" didn't exactly impress me.
| 3:41 am on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
;)I like the anti-spy thing on the IE toolbar, it seems to remove the bugs in my computer
| 3:43 pm on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
did you know about the user: feature in Google? It returns all queries made by one particular user. Usually, you need to specify the user id found in your Google cookie (e.g. user:127D83A67CCF1020) but for WebmasterWorld members they also implemented a mapping to WebmasterWorld usernames. I googled user:MultiMan and found some real scary stuff.
| 3:47 pm on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|G$, for example, uses the G$-TB to watch every site you go to and then uses that information to penalize the sites you frequent if G$ thinks you "care" about the sites in any way. |
If you think that is why your site was penalized, then you just don't understand how to analyze search engine penalties.
| 4:17 pm on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I realize that some people don't fully realize how G$ uses the TB. And I am not going to tell specifics how, because G$ watches these threads too. One thing about using WebmasterWorld, you cannot ever show your hand here, because G$ will use that against you, too.
I do know that G$ worshippers will sputter against any truth being told about their idol G$, including the silly command suggestions. LOL :)
| 5:28 pm on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you are accusing me of being a google worshipper, well that's funny. Your posts, however, do label you as a google basher.
I have 20 computers with the GTB that have been using one of my sites as the home page for over 4 years. They load the page at least 150 - 200 times a day each.
The site has been number one for over 5 years in a competitive serp.
I guess that Google "overlooked" that site.
| 6:03 pm on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I suppose I can safely offer one example of how the G$ TB can destroy a site.
A new site was created,
To protect from competition and hostile individuals, the .org and .net versions were also set. They were parked on top of the .com site. So, one could surf to
and see the same content as kw1kw2.com
Over time, there were only a couple of incoming links to kw1kw2.com. There were never any links to kw1kw2.org or kw1kw2.net. Not a one. Not a single SE ever had a legitimate reason to crawl the other 2 domains or even know they exist.
Initially, kw1kw2.com went straight to #1 in SERPs only because it is a very precise kw combination that is not common to be otherwise put together in a domain name.
But G$ used the TB to "see" three new sites, and BAM! the real site was hit with a dupe filter. The site disappeared from SERPs -- right at a critical time when the kw search got a drastic bump upward. It was gone when needed the most.
Searching with the site: command, all three of the domains were listed -- but with no descriptions.
G$ toyed with the owner, forcing the webmaster to spend time needlessly.
Attempting to use G$'s "url-remove" system required a massive amount of unpaid time. To remove the two other domains, it required that each had its own domain name email address in order to "register" under the time-wasting G$ url-remove system.
As such, the .org and .net domains had to be converted to full-blown websites in their own right (instead of being merely parked on top of an existing domain), and then email addresses had to be established respectively. A robots.txt file also had to be created in each of the two other domains to DISALLOW all user-agents throughout each respective site.
After all that, then using the email address for the .org domain, the webmaster had to create a new G$ account, "register," log-on to G$, and then ask G$ "pretty pretty please delete kw1kw2.org."
The same steps had to be followed all over again for the kw1kw2.net domain too.
A day or so later, G$ decided it was finally willing to remove the two domains.
But it did not then restore the penalized kw1kw2.com site. The webmaster then had to wait for whenever G$ decided to update everything again.
By then, it was too late to benefit from the drastic bump in temporary traffic.
I saw that happen for domains not even 6 months old and with no links to them. The only way that can happen is by G$'s privacy-invasion of its TB! It listed sites it never would have otherwise had a reason to crawl. G$ was the one who made the error that never should have happened, and G$ made it cost the webmaster the unpaid time -- while G$ spent nothing to correct the problem they created. And when it was all said and done, G$ still did not immediately restore the original site to the SERPs! Everything about that whole situation is just wrong.
It doesn't make one a basher to see that!
So, the next time someone tries to suggest that G$'s TB is benign, just remember, it's a lie. With it, G$ is watching and recording everywhere you go.
I fully appreciate and understand that not everyone who might even innocently make a pro-G$ statement is necessarily a full-blown G$ cultist. But, making statements that suggest that a reality is the backside output of a male bovine endangers one of coming close to it.
| 7:47 pm on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
multiman, while I don't doubt your site got hit with the backside of something, there is no way to prove that it was the toolbar. For instance, I have a client with multiple domain names sitting on top of each other for years, with inbounds to both. I cruise to that site every day with my toolbar. The domains sometimes used to double up in the serps but lately Google is smart enough to know which one is the real one. That's just my experience, which contradicts yours.
So while I don't doubt your site has experienced trouble, there's no proof that it was the toolbar.
But enough about our websites. Let's talk about Yahoo's toolbar. ;)